Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Witherweaver

Filter to certain boards:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 215
1
General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 16, 2017, 03:01:50 pm »
New Project: I watch all of the old Tim Burton Batman movies.

I'll admit that even with Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker being more "realistic" and "dark", I still found him less threatening than Jack Nicholson. At least he seemed honest in his attitude. I never bought the humor from Nicholson, which made him much creepier in my opinion.

Huh, I think a similar effect can be seen with Tim Curry's Pennywise vs. Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise.

In what direction would you apply that? Because I felt Tim Curry was more threatening. To me it had a lot to do with the color scheme, though. The new one looked so much like "this is a scary movie" with his pale colours that I felt "Yeah, this is not real, I'm not scared.". Tim Curry's red hair and colorful costume made him seem much more like a living person, in clown attire, which I felt amplified the effect. I was actually going to write about this here, but my phone ate the post.

Well I think Curry and Nicholson were similar, and Ledger and Skarsgard were similar.

Tim Curry felt more threatening in a way that his appearance was more 'normal', but wrong enough to give a very disturbing feel. He also at times was overly clowny, in the same manner that real clowns are.  He was more like a psychopath.. he could fit in the normal world (inasmuch as clowns are normal), but secretly he ate children.

Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise always seemed like a monster and never a person. I think Ledger's Joker was similar. Though I agree that in some ways Ledger was more realistic, he didn't seem like someone who, if you came across on the street (without makeup and scars), you would feel comfortable around. Nicholson, though, seemed more like the kind of psychopath you may expect to see in politics or running a company. All smiles, articulate, educated , but under the surface absolutely insane. So if you were to meet him, you might at first think he's a regular outgoing person.

I don't think any one is better than the other in either case; they both have different effects.

2
General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: October 16, 2017, 10:29:22 am »
New Project: I watch all of the old Tim Burton Batman movies.

I'll admit that even with Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker being more "realistic" and "dark", I still found him less threatening than Jack Nicholson. At least he seemed honest in his attitude. I never bought the humor from Nicholson, which made him much creepier in my opinion.

Huh, I think a similar effect can be seen with Tim Curry's Pennywise vs. Bill Skarsgard's Pennywise.

3
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: October 14, 2017, 09:56:02 am »
There is a class of phrases that can not be assigned a truth value.  Basically, metalanguage falls into this.

So in generality, there isn't a true/false dichotomy but rather a true/false/NA trichitomy.

I suppose that's why reducto ad absurdum does not work. To show false cannot he true is not the same as showing true.
Where does the law of non-existent middle come into play then? Are you saying paradoxes like "Everything I say is false" fall into the same category as "What's the weather like?" and "Go put on your shoes!" or other sentences with no truth value? That wasn't really the way I learned it but I suppose it makes sense.

Regarding Reductio Ad Absurdum, I think it doesn't apply because "Some things I say are true" isn't an argument, it's just a premise.

Hmm.. I suppose I was only referring to assertions, that you could otherwise evaluate as true or false, but it's actually nonsensical to do so.

4
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: October 14, 2017, 07:58:51 am »
There is a class of phrases that can not be assigned a truth value.  Basically, metalanguage falls into this.

So in generality, there isn't a true/false dichotomy but rather a true/false/NA trichitomy.

I suppose that's why reducto ad absurdum does not work. To show false cannot he true is not the same as showing true.

5
General Discussion / Re: Random Stuff Part III
« on: October 04, 2017, 09:18:52 am »

6
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: October 04, 2017, 09:17:44 am »
Tear and tear are pronounced differently, but tear and tier are pronounced the same.

Tears me up.

7
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: October 04, 2017, 08:44:46 am »
"Up for" and "down for" mean the same thing.

8
General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: September 30, 2017, 06:54:59 pm »
So I am now on season 2 of Bojack Horseface. For some reason, the Vincent storylines are tickling me. I think it's just how utterly absurd it is, and all the things he says to try to sound grown-up. I mean, running a business factory. That's pretty serious.

Ha, that was one of my favorite subplots.

9
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: September 30, 2017, 06:53:14 pm »
Literally in this context has virtually no meaning apart from emphasis, just like swear words when they are used as adjectives or adverbs.

This is fucking literally the best fucking thing in this thread.


Did you not see the post about the machine for eating pickles and trolling forums?

10
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: September 30, 2017, 06:51:14 pm »
If you're going to learn a programming language, learn Arnold C. Literally the best programming language ever, literally.

11
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: September 30, 2017, 05:54:42 pm »
Just in case anyone is wondering: on average a person would have to eat about 28 pickles a day to literally eat one million pickles in a life time

Hey, that's actually doable!  How healthy are pickles?

Not a good source of calories, actually. You'd need to eat other stuff. But you'd be getting a lot of salt from all those pickles. Dangerous levels I think.

12
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: September 30, 2017, 03:48:25 pm »
Also pretty sure I disagree with DXV on the figurative thing. In the sentence "He is literally the devil," "literally" is being used figuratively.
Using "literally" figuratively does not mean using "literally" to mean "figuratively."

I actually didn't get what you were saying until you worded it this way.

13
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: September 30, 2017, 12:00:10 pm »
Then you would say, "He is actually literally the devil."

14
General Discussion / Re: What the hell, English?
« on: September 30, 2017, 11:25:32 am »
Language is alive and has been for thousands of years and isn't ever ever going to conform to your rules regardless of how logical you insist that they are.

People complain about literally being used as exaggeration but never have a problem with "really" being used in similar ways. But, like, what do you think "really" started out as meaning? It's got a big hint right there in the spelling.

Really?

15
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 30, 2017, 06:51:48 am »
If you literally ate a million pickles, you would be some kind of machine for trolling forums and eating pickles.

This is literally the best thing I've ever read.

16
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 30, 2017, 06:34:55 am »
These days sometimes people use "actually" to mean "literally," because no-one complains about that yet.

Or maybe because it still means what it's supposed to mean, unlike "literally"?
I don't follow you. It's the same. In "I ate a million pickles," "a million" means "a million," even though I did not eat a million pickles. In "I literally ate a million pickles," "literally" means "literally" (in the sense of "actually," not, "word-for-word"). In "I actually ate a million pickles," "actually" means "actually."

If you are saying "literally should only mean word-for-word," well that ship sailed even earlier.

No, I mean what I said.

Do you mean to say that you were being literal?

17
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 29, 2017, 04:41:57 pm »
These days sometimes people use "actually" to mean "literally," because no-one complains about that yet.

Or maybe because it stillactually means what it's supposed to mean, unlike "literally"?

18
General Discussion / Re: Biweekly, bimonthly, etc.
« on: September 29, 2017, 10:52:46 am »
Yeah, this problem is literally the worst thing that has happened to me. I hope I don't have to deal with it before next Friday.

This post got more upvotes than I would have expected. Am I missing anything?
GendoIkari is making fun of Kuildeous' outrage about inaccurate use of words by jokingly referring to two other popular cases of inaccurate word use: One is the use of "literally" in its opposite meaning of figuratively - originally an ironic use that has become so commonplace that people think it's how it is meant to be used -, and the unclarity of "next [weekday]", which is used by some to mean "the next time that particular day comes around" and by others as "this day in the week after the current one".

I'm just glad both reference were caught!

It was bireferential.

19
General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: September 27, 2017, 09:33:54 am »
I really could not stand Fish Mooney.  The rest wasn't so bad, really.

20
General Discussion / Re: TV shows
« on: September 27, 2017, 08:19:47 am »
I know most of you all are down on Gotham.  Can you tell me why I shouldn’t be enjoying it?  I’m almost done with Season 1 and find it perfectly cromulent.

It gets worse.

21
General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: September 23, 2017, 04:34:31 pm »
One thing I think this movie did well is carry over the idea of It as a metaphor for systemic evil in real-world societies.  People are generally complacent with terrible things happening as long as they're done behind closed doors.  The movie didn't really spell it out, but they kept enough relevant scenes and content from the book for that to come through.

22
General Discussion / Re: Movies: Any movie buffs?
« on: September 23, 2017, 04:16:31 pm »
So I watched the new It today; I was very impressed.  The kids were all pretty much spot on, and it stayed fairly close in-line with the book's 1957/1958 events. , modulo some of the more 'spiritual' (or whathaveyou) parts from the book).  The things that were changed/updated mostly seemed good (though, I'm disappointed we did not get This is battery acid, you slime!).

The sound balancing seemed really odd in the beginning; like all the music and effects were overly loud.  I didn't notice it later on, though, so maybe I got used to it or it was just an aberration.

Looking forward to the second part.

23
Dominion Articles / Re: Poacher
« on: September 19, 2017, 08:34:48 pm »
I can't get past poached eggs being a thing, because I imagine someone with a bow hunting down a wild egg.

Apparently other people do not have this issue, which I also do not understand.

24
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Strategy Blog Returns!
« on: September 14, 2017, 03:54:48 pm »
I prefer 4P over 2P any time. Also I never play Dominion online and don't care about it. Am I special yet?

Sounds like you belong over at the Strategist's Forum of Dominion, not here.
Splitters!

But at least we can all agree to hate the Strategical Dominion Forum.

It appears I shouldn't have wasted that joke on a subforum without upvotes...
It's like the #2 on the Top Five Things You're Doing Wrong list published by ForumRespectStrategy.com, and #4 on the corresponding list published by StrategyForForumRespect.com.  I guess you are more of a StrategyOfForumRespect.com kinda guy.

Where does F.ds fall on the RespectedStrategyForums list?

25
Dominion General Discussion / Re: Dominion Strategy Blog Returns!
« on: September 14, 2017, 03:53:10 pm »
I prefer 4P over 2P any time. Also I never play Dominion online and don't care about it. Am I special yet?

Sounds like you belong over at the Strategist's Forum of Dominion, not here.
Splitters!

But at least we can all agree to hate the Strategical Dominion Forum.

It appears I shouldn't have wasted that joke on a subforum without upvotes...

Mine was an homage to yours, for whatever that's worth

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 215

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 18 queries.